![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
I am unaware of any legacy discussions about how primary data comes to be accepted routinely in Wikipedia.
At some point in the past, some kinds of primary data came to be acceptable, and other kinds not.
After this early judgment, the rules became more difficult to change. I do not know how "pricing" data could come to be judged if a change were proposed. One problem with prices is that they are geographically relative, whereas other kinds of primary data - like city populations - are absolute if Wiki reports them. I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I did some exploring of the what-links-here of WP:NOPRICES and WP:PRICES. Most discussions seem to take place about rather non-essential goods (consumer electronics, cars) and the only infobox that seems to include prices is Template:Infobox information appliance. Meanwhile a search for "affordable" returns 38240 results. I therefore conclude that prices have already entered Wikipedia in qualitative form, and suggest that this page be turned into a Wikipedia guideline that regulates the qualitative and quantitative mentionings of prices.
Furthermore prices of essential products (a visit to a doctor, a liter of drinkable water, a year of tutition for a school) have a profound impact on the way we process information. For example I can read a page about a private jet, and from my experience I know that I can't afford one. I will therefore either never look up the average or lowest price of private-jet-flying or will have to invest much time into research (maybe not available in a language I know). But if the number were more present (i.e. on Wikipedia), I could reach a ready conclusion and make much better decisions about my private-jet-flying plans.
I think that we might have a similar situation in less educated communities. People might be under the impression that certain goods and services are unafordable to them, and the barrier for research is infinitly high in those cases. So I would like to propose further, that by introducing more numeric values we end the +12000$-per-year bias of Wikipedia. Words like "affordable" are probably written by people that have at least more than 12000$ per year and are truly meaningless to those that have less, or substantially less. The statement "affordable to" only has 411 hits on Wikipedia, and it therefore seems that most of the qualtiative statements that are made are not qualified in a way that would be required in order to be neutral and unbiased for readers, regardless of their financial situation. A numeric value is much more neutral in this regard, but would need to be updated frequently for unstable currencies. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 14:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, it is as a consequence of a derailed discussion on a talk page this one, that I commence this one here. In a nutshell (I hope):
All in all, is opposition to the inclusion of prices in the above case, proper? Does the non-descriptive and non-compulsory WP:PRICES really give basis to delete this carefully searched and referenced information? As mentioned, I am forcedly resorting to starting this discussion here, because of the derailed RfC on the relevant Talk Page (and other retaliatory actions against me, including being subject of a sockpuppet investigation, which I have no qualms highlighting, unlike the opposing editor's practice of oppressing and/or contorting facts—as I have complained about in the sockpuppet report—and deleting warnings from his Talk Page).
Above all, I raise this discussion here with a view to encourage/seek more more definitive and/or prescriptive guidance on this WP... it isn't helpful that it is so inconclusive, causing the above type of arguments to arise.
I am not requesting or suggesting that this Policy be varied to allow prices for all consumer goods, but a car is typically a major purchase for most people, with price being a key factor in consumer choice. I argue for price inclusion, only if fully referenced and as it applied at a specific point in time (the most practical, if not logical, being the time of launch of the car or last listed price).
CtrlXctrlV (
talk)
12:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
"The specific are more complicated: we should not be giving details; but we should be giving wnough to be helpful We write the encyclopedia so it can be used.' DGG' ( talk ) 06:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata has a property ( d:Property:P2284) that allows to add prices to any item. This would be an ideal way to test the usefulness of prices as long as Wikipedia is still lacking this information. I hope we can get discussions going on both projects about this issue. The issue of notability is also lower on Wikidata and adding many statements, makes it easy to take into account different dates and localities for prices. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 17:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Suggesting that the major shortcuts be restored to WP:NOT.
WP:NOT is the most specific guidance we have about prices in a policy/guideline, and while I think the conversations this page was created to foster are important, I don't think the shortcuts should be retargeted to a page that says, effectively, "[policy] says [such and such], but...". In other words, it seems like the goal of this page is, at the moment, to better understand consensus regarding inclusion/exclusion of price data in articles, to find exceptions, to think about best practices, etc. -- all good things, but in exploring those it's doing something other than providing non-controversial information about a policy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
GermanJoe, in 2018, you repaired (at least) the following redirect:
seizing a known policy shortcut (still in use on various talkpages) for a personal essay is inappropriate
As part of a broader pharmaceutical drug pricing dispute, further discussion has developed in a section below, with three new editors (Colin, Ronz and myself) expressing concern about these redirects that lead editors looking for policy information to an essay, that in its first paragraph, denies there is a policy and contains misleading information about Featured articles. Do you have anything to add to the suggestions below about restoring those redirects to their historical targets at WP:NOT, as they were established years before by Thumperward and Eraserhead1? See this history and this history. Ping @ Smallbones, Doc James, and Rhododendrites:, who also participated in those redirects and discussions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Per the brief comments at ANI ( Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_resolution), I think this article should be removed back to user space. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Another example (some things cannot be unseen!): the first three paras contradict each other:
followed by
Another example: (Hello, WP:WEIGHT) ...
Fixing this essay would be a time-sink. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is my response from another talk page to the allegation about Featured articles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Bluerasberry and Barkeep49: this is perhaps the most egregious edit I've seen throughout this pricing issue. Blue, you changed two common redirects to a policy page to point instead to an essay that you created. And, this has stood for over three years, meaning we have no way of knowing how many editors were diverted from policy to your opinion. It would be very wise of you to reinstate the redirects to policy as soon as possible. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
In correcting the text on this page, I came across this archived discussion, where in 2015, multiple WPMED editors were arguing the same points we are seeing now. There was no consensus in that discussion to proceed, and yet, here we are. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
There are many price discussions in many places and contexts. It is useful to collect them somehow. Currently there is no name for the practice of collecting conversations from multiple topics and putting them on a guide page. As time has passed, we have become able to identify issues which recur in various contexts. Prices is one of them.
Gender identity is another. I compiled a list of discussions about managing gender in biographies on Wikipedia. Some other people edited that list. See it at
I am considering cleaning up the list here somehow. I am not sure what fields to communicate. Perhaps
Regardless of any controversy around a topic, I wish that we could find common ground in some best practice for cataloging discussions. Wikipedia has no conversation tagging system for discussions, so the only way a collection like this can exist is if someone manually curates it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Essays Low‑impact ![]() | |||||||||
|
I am unaware of any legacy discussions about how primary data comes to be accepted routinely in Wikipedia.
At some point in the past, some kinds of primary data came to be acceptable, and other kinds not.
After this early judgment, the rules became more difficult to change. I do not know how "pricing" data could come to be judged if a change were proposed. One problem with prices is that they are geographically relative, whereas other kinds of primary data - like city populations - are absolute if Wiki reports them. I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I did some exploring of the what-links-here of WP:NOPRICES and WP:PRICES. Most discussions seem to take place about rather non-essential goods (consumer electronics, cars) and the only infobox that seems to include prices is Template:Infobox information appliance. Meanwhile a search for "affordable" returns 38240 results. I therefore conclude that prices have already entered Wikipedia in qualitative form, and suggest that this page be turned into a Wikipedia guideline that regulates the qualitative and quantitative mentionings of prices.
Furthermore prices of essential products (a visit to a doctor, a liter of drinkable water, a year of tutition for a school) have a profound impact on the way we process information. For example I can read a page about a private jet, and from my experience I know that I can't afford one. I will therefore either never look up the average or lowest price of private-jet-flying or will have to invest much time into research (maybe not available in a language I know). But if the number were more present (i.e. on Wikipedia), I could reach a ready conclusion and make much better decisions about my private-jet-flying plans.
I think that we might have a similar situation in less educated communities. People might be under the impression that certain goods and services are unafordable to them, and the barrier for research is infinitly high in those cases. So I would like to propose further, that by introducing more numeric values we end the +12000$-per-year bias of Wikipedia. Words like "affordable" are probably written by people that have at least more than 12000$ per year and are truly meaningless to those that have less, or substantially less. The statement "affordable to" only has 411 hits on Wikipedia, and it therefore seems that most of the qualtiative statements that are made are not qualified in a way that would be required in order to be neutral and unbiased for readers, regardless of their financial situation. A numeric value is much more neutral in this regard, but would need to be updated frequently for unstable currencies. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 14:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, it is as a consequence of a derailed discussion on a talk page this one, that I commence this one here. In a nutshell (I hope):
All in all, is opposition to the inclusion of prices in the above case, proper? Does the non-descriptive and non-compulsory WP:PRICES really give basis to delete this carefully searched and referenced information? As mentioned, I am forcedly resorting to starting this discussion here, because of the derailed RfC on the relevant Talk Page (and other retaliatory actions against me, including being subject of a sockpuppet investigation, which I have no qualms highlighting, unlike the opposing editor's practice of oppressing and/or contorting facts—as I have complained about in the sockpuppet report—and deleting warnings from his Talk Page).
Above all, I raise this discussion here with a view to encourage/seek more more definitive and/or prescriptive guidance on this WP... it isn't helpful that it is so inconclusive, causing the above type of arguments to arise.
I am not requesting or suggesting that this Policy be varied to allow prices for all consumer goods, but a car is typically a major purchase for most people, with price being a key factor in consumer choice. I argue for price inclusion, only if fully referenced and as it applied at a specific point in time (the most practical, if not logical, being the time of launch of the car or last listed price).
CtrlXctrlV (
talk)
12:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
"The specific are more complicated: we should not be giving details; but we should be giving wnough to be helpful We write the encyclopedia so it can be used.' DGG' ( talk ) 06:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata has a property ( d:Property:P2284) that allows to add prices to any item. This would be an ideal way to test the usefulness of prices as long as Wikipedia is still lacking this information. I hope we can get discussions going on both projects about this issue. The issue of notability is also lower on Wikidata and adding many statements, makes it easy to take into account different dates and localities for prices. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 17:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Suggesting that the major shortcuts be restored to WP:NOT.
WP:NOT is the most specific guidance we have about prices in a policy/guideline, and while I think the conversations this page was created to foster are important, I don't think the shortcuts should be retargeted to a page that says, effectively, "[policy] says [such and such], but...". In other words, it seems like the goal of this page is, at the moment, to better understand consensus regarding inclusion/exclusion of price data in articles, to find exceptions, to think about best practices, etc. -- all good things, but in exploring those it's doing something other than providing non-controversial information about a policy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
GermanJoe, in 2018, you repaired (at least) the following redirect:
seizing a known policy shortcut (still in use on various talkpages) for a personal essay is inappropriate
As part of a broader pharmaceutical drug pricing dispute, further discussion has developed in a section below, with three new editors (Colin, Ronz and myself) expressing concern about these redirects that lead editors looking for policy information to an essay, that in its first paragraph, denies there is a policy and contains misleading information about Featured articles. Do you have anything to add to the suggestions below about restoring those redirects to their historical targets at WP:NOT, as they were established years before by Thumperward and Eraserhead1? See this history and this history. Ping @ Smallbones, Doc James, and Rhododendrites:, who also participated in those redirects and discussions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Per the brief comments at ANI ( Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_resolution), I think this article should be removed back to user space. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Another example (some things cannot be unseen!): the first three paras contradict each other:
followed by
Another example: (Hello, WP:WEIGHT) ...
Fixing this essay would be a time-sink. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is my response from another talk page to the allegation about Featured articles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Bluerasberry and Barkeep49: this is perhaps the most egregious edit I've seen throughout this pricing issue. Blue, you changed two common redirects to a policy page to point instead to an essay that you created. And, this has stood for over three years, meaning we have no way of knowing how many editors were diverted from policy to your opinion. It would be very wise of you to reinstate the redirects to policy as soon as possible. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
In correcting the text on this page, I came across this archived discussion, where in 2015, multiple WPMED editors were arguing the same points we are seeing now. There was no consensus in that discussion to proceed, and yet, here we are. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
There are many price discussions in many places and contexts. It is useful to collect them somehow. Currently there is no name for the practice of collecting conversations from multiple topics and putting them on a guide page. As time has passed, we have become able to identify issues which recur in various contexts. Prices is one of them.
Gender identity is another. I compiled a list of discussions about managing gender in biographies on Wikipedia. Some other people edited that list. See it at
I am considering cleaning up the list here somehow. I am not sure what fields to communicate. Perhaps
Regardless of any controversy around a topic, I wish that we could find common ground in some best practice for cataloging discussions. Wikipedia has no conversation tagging system for discussions, so the only way a collection like this can exist is if someone manually curates it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)